[dragonwriter]

> I've said it several times before here, and I'll say it again. US needs a "Constitutional Court" that filters out unconstitutional bills after they are signed by the president, and before they become law.

The reason the US does not have such a thing is that the principal of the US judicial system is to operate on real controversies with real, concrete interested parties rather than dealing with abstract, theoretical conflicts.

> I also think special Courts are usually bad news as they tend to become biased towards their purpose. So for example a "patent Court" will become biased towards patents, a spying Court will become biased towards spying and so on. But in this case, a Constitutional Court becoming biased towards the Constitution would actually be a good thing.

I think you mistake the way that specialty courts become biased -- like other regulatory bodies, they become biased by developing a strong relationships with the most-frequently involved parties appearing before them. For a Constitutional Court, where the potential pre-implementation challengers of a law are varied, but the defenders are the same, the expected bias is probably not in the direction you'd like.